Trek comparisons

What makes a Trek 7.7 FX worth $760 more than a 7.6 FX?
I know that there are about $250 to 280 worth of upgrades like Ultegra VS Tiagra front derailleurs, Shimano R770 10 speed VS Shimano SL R440 9 speed and Shimano crank VS FSA but as far as I can tell the differences are worth less than $300. What am I not seeing??

Marketing. Actually, from the 7.3 FX up to the 7.7 FX (the 7.9 is now called a road bike as it's a carbon-frame) the frames are virtually identical. I have a (former) 7.5 FX that is better decked-out component wise than a 7.7 FX. Maybe the 7.9 FX as well - I haven't checked the components lately.

So if you're thinking of rebuilding one with new components, I suggest a 7.3 FX as your starting point. But do as pleases you. These bikes are fun above all else.

I just got a 7.6fx last month, and I rode the 7.5, 7.6, and 7.7 before making the decision. Honestly I'm skewed toward wanting the best when I make a big purchase so I have no regrets later, but I just couldn't feel enough of a difference with the 7.7 to justify the price, and the 7.5 was not in stock in my size, so I got the 7.6 and figured I could upgrade any components I needed to later if I found any shortcomings. I've got a couple hundred miles on it now, and overall I'm very happy with it, but I can see myself upgrading the front derailuer at some point, and I already upgraded the pedals and saddle. I do wish I had disc brakes for some reason, even though I don't need the braking power, I just don't like the finicky nature of the rim brakes.

Trek has been raising prices and pulling a switcher-roo. For example, today's' stock components of the 7.6 are what - many of them - came on my 2007 7.5. Carbon-fork, Tiagra RD, better-grade handlebars, etc. I paid $710 for my 2007 FX in early 2008 - they were making room for the new stock. Now the 7.5 FX has gone up to $899+ and it's components are what, at the time, were on the 7.3 FX (really nice bike - I should have gone for that!). So you have an excellent machine there.

Not that Trek are crooks - all the FX-series are very fine bicycles. It's the economy crashing and burning on all involved - from the Trek factory's manufacturing costs to the retailer and so on. But if someone states they want to customize a new FX, and which should they buy - nowadays I counsel to go with the 7.3. Costs of a full customization can be exorbitant - starting low-price helps offset this. And looking about for a frame, of the hybrid school of design, and building up another hybrid for resale also helps.

I'm very curious about the differences between a 7.3fx and a 7300. Couple of the rides I take can be pretty bumpy, so a front suspension may be of interest... so I'm looking at what are the negatives of a front suspension and if neither had suspension, what really (as in practically) would be the major differences?

My Trek 7500 had front suspension. After a while, I hated it for how much power it robbed when climbing hills. I found on my 7.6fx without the front suspension, just standing on the pedals and letting my legs absorb large bumps took care of the need for suspension, and I can climb hills much better.

Here is the link to the Trek site and the section where you can find the specifications on both the FX-series and Hybrid - 7000's series. One thing that stands out to me is the direction that the 'pendulum' swings on these 2 series. By 'pendulum' I mean as follows: Consider a Hybrid as a bike that is both like a mountain-bike and a road-bike. On some the pendulum swings more toward the road-bike - in terms of dimension, components, wheels. In the other direction it swings toward the mountain-bike.

Check out the Trek site and look at each the 7.3 and the 7300. Let us know what you think? Here:

Riverside Guy wrote: I'm very curious about the differences between a 7.3fx and a 7300. Couple of the rides I take can be pretty bumpy, so a front suspension may be of interest... so I'm looking at what are the negatives of a front suspension and if neither had suspension, what really (as in practically) would be the major differences?

My wife and I own 7300's. I also own a rigid forked hard tail MTB that I ride when biking solo. I like the 7300 for rail trails and our local roads which can be very jarring. Personally I've found that the front 35mm SPA suspension on the 7300 doesn't rob that much energy. Sure if you're doing a lot of hills you may not want any suspension. But IMO the 7300 is a nice smooth and relatively fast bike for cruising, short tours and rail to trail paths. The suspension is not a deal breaker to me. YMMV

Last edited by wonderbread; 08-14-09 at 05:49 AM.
Reason: Include River Sides post

Check out the Trek site and look at each the 7.3 and the 7300. Let us know what you think?

I had already done that... the problem is that things like frame specs/geometry don't mean all that much to me as I'm a real noob on bike specs. So I was looking for those who have a real good understanding of what and how much a degree or three of difference means.

AND the comparison charts they do only list specific components. I don't know how a Shimano Deore and a Shimano Alivio equate to ride and feel.